Our mistrust is increased when we hear that
Livy, the pattern of this school of writers, was copied just where he
is least worthy of imitation--on the ground, namely, 'that he turned a
dry and walled tradition into grace and richness.' In the same place we
meet with the suspicious declaration that it is the function of the
historian-- just as if he were one with the poet--to excite, charm, or
overwhelm the reader. We ask ourselves finally, whether the contempt
for modern things, which these same humanists sometimes avowed openly,
must not necessarily have had an unfortunate influence on their
treatment of them. Unconsciously the reader finds himself looking with
more interest and confidence on the unpretending Latin and Italian
annalists, like those of Bologna and Ferrara, who remained true to the
old style, and still more grateful does he feel to the best of the
genuine chroniclers who wrote in Italian--to Marino Sanuto, Corio, and
Infessura--who were followed at the beginning of the sixteenth century
by that new and illustrious band of great national historians who wrote
in their mother tongue.
Contemporary history, no doubt, was written far better in the language
of the day than when forced into Latin. Whether Italian was also more
suitable for the narrative of events long past, or for historical
research, is a question which admits, for that period, of more answers
than one.
Pages:
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286